All you say may be true - I'm working with the same restricted amount of evidence you have. But I don't assume any one scenario - I am quite open to the situation you suggest.
But I think the same evidence can be looked at in a different way and it reveals new angles and possibilities that do not stretch credibility and remain consistent with what we know.
If you then apply these alternative scenarios to the so-called/alleged "double event" (which is largely a conventional wisdom after all) then it opens up new perspectives on Eddowes. At least that's my view.
I'm juggling combinations of ideas here alternative histories (if you like) and try to retain an open mind.
I do recognise that such questioning is uncomfortable for those who believe that they have a specific solution, but hey-ho!
That is a commendable approach to the case. The problem with Liz and the double event is that there are a number of scenarios that are reasonable some more so than others (in my opinion) but none can be ruled out completely. I still think that the scenario with the least amount of questions and red flags is that Jack killed Liz. But keeping an open mind as you appear to do is good. No question about it.
"Does your research indicate that they had money for food and money to buy a drink?"
Not infrequently they helped one another out on this score. The Jewish socialists were even poorer than the English ones.
"Because if it does, then they had the money to pay for a prostitute's services."
Even if that were true, they would have spent it on something to eat (no wisecracks--heh-heh). Anarchists and socialists, as I pointed out above, scorned prostitution and marriage, which they regarded a form of prostitution.
Sorry, Lynn but I just can't buy into your line of reasoning. Ask any woman on these boards or ask any woman for that matter. They will tell you that men are horrible, disgusting pigs that only think of sex morning, noon and night. If politicians, clergymen, athletes or just about any group of males that you can think of get caught dipping their wick from time to time, I don't see how these guys are free of temptation no matter how zealously they outwardly professed their beliefs. With a whole room full of them, surely the odds were in Liz's favor that at least one would deviate from the straight and narrow.
The problem with Liz and the double event is that there are a number of scenarios that are reasonable some more so than others (in my opinion) but none can be ruled out completely.
So why do we have to settle on any particular scenario - keep them all in play simultaneously?
I still think that the scenario with the least amount of questions and red flags is that Jack killed Liz.
Except that following that line of reasoning has got us absolutely nowhere over decades. What do we lose by challenging conventional wisdoms and long cherished approaches, while not of course, throwing baby out with the proverbial bathwater?
But keeping an open mind as you appear to do is good. No question about it.